There's often a mealy mouthed feel about accusations, denials, court proceedings, judgements, fines, public disdain and moral high ground taken by litigants and public observers. The York-Sainsbury case is a fine example. Suppliers invent an alcohol boosted lemonade for grown-ups, (why not?) which can be taken as an inducement to under-age drinking. The reader can now spend 20 minutes arguing the rights and wrongs. But the point at issue is not alcopops. It is how to stop alcohol getting into the hands of the young. Sainsbury did its best. Staff training, rules, codes of practice, supervision, everything (well, nearly everything) was tried to enforce the system. However, the police and local off licensees, like everybody else, know that drinks are being sold unlawfully from some supermarkets. The entrapment of JS, through children making purchases under police supervision may be justified, but it proves little. It, for example, does not prove that this branch sold alcohol to under-age customers, other than to those who made the police inspired purchases. But it did throw up an interesting problem. If the checkout assistants are under-age, they might well be sympathetic to young people buying the demon drink. "Put the wine in a carrier bag, or I might lose my job!" Employing only over 18s at checkouts is a sweeping solution to stop a few sales. Children are attracted to drink and have access to it in dozens of ways pubs, clubs, shops, grown-ups buying for them, bootlegging, theft ... to concentrate this massive problem into deliberate entrapment, a fine and a withdrawal of a trading licence in one store, may well appease moral hysteria, but it serves little purpose except one. The example will lead to fiercer supervision in shops. There will be those who will ask why prevention was not thought appropriate. After one test purchase, could not the store have been warned? This often happens to drug takers. Meanwhile, the argument for identity cards becomes ever stronger. Another 20 minute debate perhaps?

Topics